5.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Kluczbork.
6.  The applicant has a long criminal record. He has been detained on several occasions since 1997.
7.  The present application concerns his detention in Łódź Remand Centre during the following periods of time: (1) from 1 September 2004 until 10 March 2005, (2) from 20 May until 30 November 2005, (3) from 14 December 2005 until 19 January 2007, (4) from 5 February until 22 July 2007 and (5) from 8 January 2009 until an unspecified date in June 2010.
8.  It appears that the applicant has been in continuous detention since 1 September 2004, first in Łódź Remand Centre and then in other detention facilities. Immediately before 1 September 2004 he was detained in Chełm Remand Centre and on an unspecified date in June 2010 he was transferred to Kluczbork Prison.
9.  The applicant suffers from epilepsy and has regular seizures. He has also been diagnosed with a personality disorder.
10.  Three reports on the applicant’s health were obtained from experts in neurology, psychiatry and psychology in the course of the first‑instance civil proceedings in tort (see paragraph 28 below). The domestic court wished to obtain the experts’ opinion as to whether or not the applicant was fit for detention and, in the affirmative, whether special conditions needed to be created for him in the remand centre.
11.  The first report was prepared on 2 October 2006 by Dr G.B., an expert in neurology. The report stated that the applicant’s epilepsy did not, in itself, require that special conditions be created for him in the remand centre. Detention in a multi‑person cell according to the standards in place would not have a negative effect on the course of the applicant’s illness. The expert recommended, however, that the applicant be assigned a bottom bunk in a cell which was not overcrowded.
12.  The second report was drafted on 9 August 2008 by Dr M.B., an expert in psychiatry. The expert found that the applicant suffered from a mild personality disorder and experienced occasional mood swings. Detention in ordinary prison conditions would not exacerbate the applicant’s disorder.
13.  The third report was prepared on 21 April 2009 by Dr L.S., an expert in psychology. The expert found that the applicant suffered from a personality disorder with an increased tendency to emotional outbursts which manifested themselves in self‑injury. The expert concluded, however, that the applicant’s personality disorder had developed in his early life and was independent of the overcrowding and difficult conditions of detention.
14.  As established by the domestic courts, during the first four terms of his detention in Łódź Remand Centre the applicant had numerous epileptic fits. The fits often resulted in minor facial and bodily injuries such as cut lips, bruises, skin abrasions and bumps to the head. On one occasion the applicant bit his tongue. On another occasion, he cut his head against the edge of the bed.
15.  It was also found that during his epileptic fits the applicant had received first aid from his fellow inmates. Where the seizures occurred during the day, an in‑house doctor had been called in to examine the applicant. At night or on public holidays the authorities had called for an ambulance.
16.  The applicant submitted copies of five ambulance reports issued after each post‑seizure intervention in the remand centre (on 24 April, 2, 12 and 19 May and 16 June 2005).
17.  During the first four terms of his detention the applicant did not receive medical help after an epileptic fit on at least two occasions. On an unspecified date in March 2007 the warden instructed the applicant’s cell mates to turn the applicant on his side and to put something in his mouth. Likewise, when the applicant was detained in cell no. 149 in block no. 2, wing no. 4, he did not receive any assistance during his epileptic fit because the warden considered that the applicant had been simulating.
18.  After his seizures the applicant usually rested in his cell.
19.  The domestic courts established that the applicant had a record of self‑mutilation. He had received adequate medical treatment after each self‑injury.
20.  On 9 March 2005 and 19 June 2006 the applicant had EEG scans in the hospital of Łódź Prison.
21.  In the course of the civil proceedings the domestic courts established that from 2002 until 2006 the statutory minimum space per prisoner was significantly reduced in Łódź Remand Centre because of the nationwide problem of overcrowding and the fact that the remand centre was undergoing extensive renovation and many cells were out of use.
22.  It was found that during the first four terms of his detention in Łódź Remand Centre the applicant had consecutively occupied fourteen different cells, which measured between 10.5 and 12 sq. m and were shared by four to six prisoners. The living space in the applicant’s cells had ranged between 2 and 2.4 sq. m per person. The courts did not consider that the overcrowding had been of a temporary nature since the applicant had spent several years with approximately 2 sq. m of personal space.
23.  The applicant submitted that the maximum permissible capacity of his cells in Łódź Remand Centre had been significantly exceeded on a permanent basis. For example, cell no. 159 in block no. 1, wing no. 4, which was designed for two people, had in fact been shared by six prisoners including the applicant. Cell no. 151 in block no. 1, wing no. 4 measured 12 sq. m and was designed to accommodate four prisoners. It had in fact been occupied by six persons including the applicant. Cell no. 92, block no. 3, wing no. 3 measured 12.7 sq. m and had been shared by six instead of four prisoners.
24.  The civil courts established that overcrowding in prisons and remand centres had a clear negative impact on prisoners’ health and the sanitary conditions of their detention. Moreover, the difficult living conditions had led to increased stress and aggression among the prisoners. The applicant had been involved in quarrels and fights with his fellow inmates. On several occasions he had received a disciplinary punishment as a result.
25.  The domestic courts further established that on an unspecified date in 2004 the applicant had shared a single cell with another prisoner. Because his fellow inmate was recovering from an injury the applicant had been assigned the top bunk bed despite medical recommendations to the contrary. The applicant had to climb onto his bed from the lower bunk because there was no ladder. The top bunk was not equipped with a security rail.
26.  The courts also noted that during the first four terms of his detention in Łódź Remand Centre the applicant had for the most part been committed to cells which required renovation. On one occasion only, for an unspecified period of time in the autumn of 2006, he had been placed in cell no. 151, which had been freshly renovated and thus had airtight windows and was not damp.
27.  The applicant submitted that the cells in which he had been held during all five terms of his detention in Łódź Remand Centre had been dirty, not ventilated and infested with bugs and mould. The toilet annex in each of his cells had been separated from one side only and with just a sheet of fabric. As a result, the prisoners had had no privacy when using the toilet and a foul odour was constantly in the air.
28.  On 18 February 2005 the applicant brought a civil action in tort, seeking compensation in the amount of 70,000 Polish zlotys (PLN, approximately 18,000 euros, EUR) because, as he claimed, during his detention in Łódź Remand Centre he had been held in overcrowded cells in conditions which had been unsuitable for a person in his state of health. The applicant argued that, as a result, his health had deteriorated and he had suffered distress and physical pain when he had injured himself during his epileptic fits.
29.  At a hearing on 25 May 2008 the applicant specified that his civil action concerned his detention from 1 September 2004 until 22 July 2007.
30.  On 26 May 2009 the Łódź Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) found in the applicant’s favour and awarded him PLN 2,000 in respect of non‑pecuniary damage.
31.  In the course of the proceedings the domestic court obtained three medical reports prepared by experts in psychiatry, psychology and neurology (see paragraphs 10 to 13 above) and testimonies from the applicant, his fellow inmates and the remand centre’s staff. The facts which were established by the domestic court on the basis of that material are described in the relevant paragraphs above.
32.  The Łódź Regional Court examined the applicant’s claim under Articles 23 and 24 of the Civil Code (Kodeks Cywilny), in conjunction with Article 448 of that Code.
33.  The domestic court held that the applicant’s personal rights, namely his right to dignity and to humane treatment, had been infringed in that he had been held in severely overcrowded cells (approximately 2 sq. m per person) for a long period of time (several years). The overcrowding in Łódź Remand Centre had not been of a temporary nature and had not been justified by any exceptional circumstances.
34.  On the other hand the first‑instance court noted that, as suggested by the expert in neurology, the course of the applicant’s epilepsy had been independent of the conditions of his detention. The overcrowding in itself had not aggravated the frequency of the applicant’s epileptic fits. However, it might have influenced his personality disorder. Moreover, the risk of the applicant injuring himself during his epileptic fits had been higher in overcrowded cells.
35.  The domestic court observed that a breach of personal rights ought to be redressed primarily through non‑pecuniary means. The applicant, however, had sought only pecuniary compensation. Taking the view that the applicant’s suffering had been of a minor degree, the court awarded him PLN 2,000 for non‑pecuniary damage. The applicant was also ordered to pay PLN 1,000 (approximately EUR 240) in partial reimbursement of his lawyer’s fee.
36.  Following an appeal by the applicant, the Łódź Court of Appeal on 30 October 2009 changed the first‑instance judgment by increasing the amount of the applicant’s award to PLN 5,000 (approximately EUR 1,180).
37.  The appellate court considered that the findings of fact and law which had been made by the regional court had been correct. It held, however, that the amount of compensation awarded had been inadequate in view of the degree of harm suffered by the applicant.
38.  A cassation appeal was not available under the applicable provisions.
39.  On numerous occasions the applicant complained to the Łódź Regional Inspectorate of the Prison Service (Okręgowy Inspektorat Służby Więziennej) about the inadequate medical care and living conditions in Łódź Remand Centre.
40.  His complaints were considered manifestly ill‑founded (decisions of 15 May 2009 in reply to the complaint of 6 March 2009 and of 16 July 2009 in reply to the complaint of 25 May 2009).